This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2007 Fort Dix attack plot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
this event has been over-reported and seems to have fallen victim to media bias (and perhaps religious bias, given the apparent emphasis on the religion of the alleged conspirators). the threat level was low, and the plot was not close to being carried out. it thus seems appropriate to remove it from the current events page. ctj 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the source that followed the sentence "and they trained by playing paintball in the woods." The source never says anything about paintball, so I deleted the unsourced statment. PBGuardsman 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times on October 19, 2008 sites the use of Paintball as a method of tactical training for the Ft. Dix Six. This is in the article Ft. Dix Six informants in the hot seat too. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fortdix19-2008oct19,0,5615585.story Mudmanz( talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't they really be called "assault rifles"? Were they capable of full-auto fire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UnneededAplomb ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
M16s and AK-47s are Assault Rifles. They are assigned to individual soldiers and are carried as a primary individual weapon hence 'Rifle'. M-60s and M-249 are Assault Weapons. Though carried by an individual they are assigned as a 'squad' weapon hence the designation SAW (Squad Assault Weapon) to the 249. Media and government officials regularly use the terms interchangeably. -- mitrebox 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
When was the video made, January 31, 2006 or 2007? -- Joelmills 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed all instances where they were referred to as a terror group/cell. Terrorism is on Wikipedia:Words to avoid and should generally only be used when referring to someone describing them as terrorists. It should not be used in the 'narrative voice' of the article. This is especially important in this case since as with the USS Cole bombing, it appears to have been a plan to attack a military target without involving any civilians (unlike the Pentagon attack for example) so designating it as a a terrorist plan is questionable in the eyes of many Nil Einne 07:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
About the list. It is not like these guys were planning attacks on all these places, they merely considered them, before settling on Fort Dix. How about removing it? 130.161.182.29 10:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The term "towel head" is an absolutely racist term and should immediately be removed from this article. I am new and don't know how to do such things, but I found the use of this term completely shocking. 64.222.44.148 10:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In all posts they were mentioned as being from former Yugoslavia. They names clearly revealed that they are Albanians from Kosovo, but it could be tricky to mention that right now, when USA is trying to separate Kosovo from Serbia and to give it independence. Thus, try to refer to their origin as it is, this will give clearer picture of the bacground of this event.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreadnot ( talk • contribs).
I disagree that the term "towel head" is racist on the following grounds
1. It never hurts to bring a towel.
2. The head is a good place to carry items while leaving ones hands free to do other things such as
-- mitrebox 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
isopentylacetate 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
"Innocent until proven guilty" seems to have fallen out of fashion nowadays, but it's still the law. The article should reflect that the group is alleged to have planned this act, rather than stating it as truth. Wikipedia is not the prosecution. Totnesmartin 11:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, according to wikipedia, Karl Rove is guilty of everything. Get used to it.
"Wikipedia is not the prosecution." We’re not the defendants, either. I believe that we have sources, even those from the US government, that indicate that the men were going to do this. Controversial information is fine so long as it’s sourced. So why not? Gracenotes T § 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If no one minds, I might remove some ambiguity from the article. .. are there any objections? Gracenotes T § 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Kind of ambiguous. One news report said the three were ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Can anyone confirm?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 11:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The area was protected by NATO troops during Kosovo War Sea diver 09:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed some categories relating to terrorism. It is debatable that the men had a terrorist motive. In US law, terrorism is defined (in part) as aiming:
"(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction" (from the Definition of terrorism article).
Which the groups statement {as given in the article) does not say. Also, in plotting to attack a military base, the "targeting civilians" definition of terrorism does not apply.
If you think I've got this wrong, please revert my removal. Totnesmartin 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The list of Group Members indicates that
Dritan Duka, was the alleged leader of the group.
Is there a source for this? The indictment doesn't appear to single out any one individual.-- James968 13:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
They are still in the code 145.9.226.69 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me from reading this that they didn't actually have any automatic weapons, but were rather practicing with a motley assortment of rifles, shotguns, and pistols; the media appears to have taken "semiautomatic rifles" and dropped the "semi." They were trying to buy assault rifles from FBI informants. It is very unlikely that they actually had automatic weapons, and I would imagine that if they did, it would be mentioned in the official court document.
However, this sounds a lot like I'm engaging in original research. I'm not proposing that we put my "it's unlikely that they had automatic weapons" OR into the article, but would anyone be opposed to my removing references to automatic weapons with milder language that doesn't specify whether the weapons were automatic or not? I realize that the "automatic weapons" content is sourced, but your average local news outlet is hardly a reliable source on technical matters. TomTheHand 14:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, having a quick look at the ref list, I'd say that the key document we (as an encyclopedia) should be relying on is what appears to be the official FBI charges, although its source is WNBC.com so it's still a little wobbly. Anything that isn't in there I'd treat with suspicion. However, it's way past my bedtime so I'll have to leave this up to others to sort out :( -- Monotonehell 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"On a retrieved laptop, the downloaded last will and testament of two September 11 hijackers[7] and militant Islamist recruiting speeches given by Osama bin Laden and others were allegedly recovered.[8]"
Are the documents available from the internet or did these people have special access to them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.131.1.131 ( talk) 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Fortunately, there has not been very much vandalism related to the name of Fort Dix (Dix = Dicks = Penises, one might logically conclude, so I would imagine that someone would be tempted). I only found one such vandal edit, on the Fort Dix page's history section, and, even then, it dated to mid-2006. Keep up the good work, guys! 204.52.215.107 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Two dates are listed, 7th and 8th of May. Which is correct? Pennywisepeter 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This report [ [1]] says it was the 7th so i've changed it. Pennywisepeter 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I keep reverting edits back to former Yugoslavia, if anyone has information to the contrary please provide it. Bas van Leeuwen 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Why '2007'? How many other plots on Fort Dix have there been? -- 84.67.250.92 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, where did the line in the introduction/summary about these men "repeated claiming" to be "of homosexual decent [sic]" (etc.) come from? It supposedly comes from the Washington Post article, but it doesn't show up anywhere else in the Wikipedia article and there's no mention of any such thing anywhere in WaPo.
Certainly, if someone can come up with a real citation, it's interesting information. But it seems like a highly offensive (on numerous levels), completely bogus insertion.
Just refreshed the page and I see now that it's gone. But I'm posting this anyway to show that someone noticed.
Does this happen often?
Dresdenia 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism, in the first section pertaining porking some young girls. 216.153.166.69 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)chefantwon
It is interesting that this foiled attack made wikipedia front page, but a foiled attack by a Christian abortion clinic bomber in Texas two weeks ago didn't. Is it because attempted radical Islamic attacks are more important than attempted radical Christian attacks? Or because wikipedia does not rank front page positioning by the actual event but rather by media volume in reporting the event (which was greater for the radical Islamic attack)? Sad mouse 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Basically wikipedia is driven by bias, it is the reason why articles are written in the first place and promoted and why others notice inconsistencies and are distraught at the fact. Wikipedia acknowledges this; if you want your side to be mentioned, write an article on the anti-abortion plot and promote it, just as the Fort Dix attack plot article was written and promoted by another side.
Also I'll try to answer your rhetorical question. This article's plot concerned a large group of individuals that were plotting to mass murder federal employees. It was also much more planned out. The abortion clinic plot was relatively simple, not as dangerous, by a single person, and targeted a few select civilians, which would qualify as regular homicide. It appears that federal cases also have much more priority.
Islamic terrorists are viewed as a bigger threat to an average person's life than Christian terrorists by the public, this should explain the relative external media coverage.-- Exander 09:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Many news sources persist in claiming that the Albanian brothers are "Yugoslavs" or "former Yugoslavs". This is probably best avoided. Firstly, Albanians are not ethnically or linquistically Slavic; this is the root of the conflicts in Serbia and Macedonia. Perhaps more importantly, "Former Yugoslav" is a term to be avoided, as it is offensive to virtually everyone to whom it might be applied. One would not want to call Estonians or Kazakhs "Former Soviets" merely to avoid specifying their ethnicity or for the sake of familiarity. The brothers are Albanians from the Macedonian side of the Serbian-Macedonian border region, so they are very likely Kosovars(I assume; clarification needed); ethnic Albanians from the semi-autonomous Serbian province of Kosovo. A large number of Kosovar refugees live in Macedonia, especially near the border, and the Albanian communities of Kosovo have strong cultural ties with those of Macedonia. The Albanians were, in general, opposed to being part of Yugoslavia, were disappointed with their place in it, and now want independance from or autonomy within the succesor states. Calling these men "Former Yugoslavs" or "Yugoslavians" is factually untrue (they are not Slavs) and politically insensitive to all parties. Paving over tremendous ethnic rifts in the former Yugoslavia by lumping disparate peoples together does a disservice to readers trying to understand the political motivations of these men. The only time "Former Yugoslav" should be used is when referring to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Greek pressure (to avoid confusion with Greek Macedonia and the "historic region") has prevented the Macedonians from formally (and sensibly) dropping the appelation.
--JovanPanić 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem lies in the murky circumstances of Eastern European geopolitics and ethnicity. Being equally offensive to everyone is far superior to giving preferential treatment to any one of the several groups competing for their place in the sun. "Former Yugoslavia" is a wonderful blanket term which avoids the nasty tendancy to make anyone learn something new- as as far as these regional skirmishes go, that usually means something as new as last week's updates. Isaac Crumm 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I figured I'd add this section because of its strong relevance to this alleged plot. I'm going to improve upon the section and get better sources once the LewRockwell.com site publishes articles regarding this attack in the next few days. Life, Liberty, Property 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's an updated source. Life, Liberty, Property 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In view of the long history of right wing elements in the U.S. traditionally heavily represented in law enforcement and currently in control of the executive function and on the basis of presented evidence the possibility of a sting operation instigated by the infiltrating agent as an agent provacteur is certainly credible. [2] Lycurgus 03:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
USA Today has this piece http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-10-fort-dix_N.htm , certainly sounds rather odd. Perhaps grounds for reviewing the Entrapment section? KDLarsen 23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Some smartass renamed them to Durka. I just fixed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.252.225.224 ( talk) 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I can't help but notice a bias against the investigation of these men. If they had recorded themselves shooting with weapons, how much more certain can you get? The word "alledged" looks like its trying to mock the investigation of the men. Its not alledged if they recorded themselves shooting with guns, so why is it "alledged that they shot with weapons? By the way I am just refering to this part of the first paragraph thats all. Tourskin 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is Duka brother’s ethnicity constantly being removed? Is wikipedia still free encyclopedia or is it being censored depending on current political situation (read: possible Kosovo independence).
I just got a threat from user Mineralè that my IP will be banned if I 'vandalise' 2007 Fort Dix attack plot page again. How is adding ethnicity information regarded as vandalism? I really don't understand that.
Mineralè is an Ethno-Nazi, evidently. PC moron gone mad with power.
I'm removing the term "sanctuary city policies". The article referenced does not use the term, and it's not exactly NPOV -- WikiMarshall 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There were ten men in the video, but only six were arrested. If I were the person who tipped off the authorities about this video, I would want to remain anonymous for my own protection and for the safety of my family, and not have my name and place of employment right there on Wikipedia for any terrorist to read and pursue. Even if the person does not mind being named, and even if it is legal to have the name there, shouldn't Wikipedia look out for that person's safety and remove the name and personal information? Yes, the person is a hero, but that also makes them a prime target for the enemy. And couldn't the place of employment also become a target out of revenge over the thwarted attack?
It seems that the government reports were very careful not to leak this information to the public, and probably for safety reasons. With the info on Wikipedia, maybe the person and the place of employment need to go on some sort of witness protection program.
Shrommer 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the hard drive was retrieved somehow from the possession of the arrested men, but the article does not make that clear. It reads as if you finish the whole chronology of events about Fort Dix, and then somebody changes the subject to write about a 9-11 update.
My two suggestions: 1-Clarify how the retrieved hard drive fits into the article. 2-Move the paragraph to the body of the news without a separate heading, or at least put the whole thing with the heading ABOVE the chronology of events. The chronology works best as a closing summary. (Is the hard-drive part included in the chronology? Should it be?)
Shrommer 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
What was the name of the father's pizzeria that one of the suspects worked at? I heard some unsubstantiated reports that it was Pasquale's. Can anyone confirm or deny this? JH032774
The attack on the sister of one of the plotters was certainly unjustified and wrong but does it constitute a hate crime? To be a hate crime, then the person hitting the sister would have to have done it because the girl is a Muslim, not because the girl is the sister of a plotter. If the person attacked because of the religion or group-membership then yes its a hate crime, however, if the person attacked because the girl is the sister of a plotter that's a reprisal against family members. When people beat up Bill Buckner's kid at school because his dad made an error that cost the Red Sox the world series, that wasn't a hate crime, it was just people being assholes. Joby1491 ( talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)j
But Bill Buckner and his kid are white. Can't be guilty of racism or hate unless you are white and the victim isn't(gays not withstanding).
I fixed a reference or two in the article to Serdar Tatar, where his last name was misspelled 'Tartar'. Unfortunately, when you do a search for 'Serdar Tatar', Wikipedia says there is no such article, but when you spell it 'Serdar Tartar', it redirects to this article. Can someone help me out and fix that? I'm not sure how - thanks. Rblaster ( talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Not moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 2007 Fort Dix attack plot → Fort Dix attack plot — There was only one of them. I would do it myself, but since there is a page lock, this is impossible to do. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This article fails to present crucial information about the case. It is causing harm each minute it stays up in this form. It should at least be flagged. Oral arguments on the appeal are going to take place May 22, and people are going to be reading this article in droves in the next few weeks.
Among the many things this article does not talk about is the role the informants played. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that both informants pushed the defendants to concoct a plot. Moreover, the informants themselves both have serious criminal records in Egypt and Albania. Beznik Bakalli is wanted for murder in Albania, and Mahmoud Omar has a history of fraud. (Indeed, that is why they both cooperated in the first place.) This page also does not do enough to differentiate the Dukas from Shnewer, as well as the individual Dukas. The government has essentially stipulated that the Dukas had no knowledge of the so-called surveillance trips, and no knowledge about the planning for Fort Dix. There is also evidence that the Dukas said to the informants that it is forbidden by Islam to kill U.S. soldiers, but the judge held that was inadmissible.
I know the no original research rule, and I can only cite to original research for now, but there has to be at least a way for me to flag this article. Any person looking for general information can hardly come to any conclusion other than guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsqr ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Neither Woodson nor Bledsoe really have links to this case - both were considered by police to be isolated, not part of terrorist groups. No evidence for Bledsoe's late claims to have been supported by AQAP; his father said he could not "process reality." Don't try to use every incidence of violence by a disturbed person as a Muslim terrorist incident; the police don't and federal investigators don't. Parkwells ( talk) 23:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I regretfully have to remove [3] - it sounds like a first hand account by someone directly involved, and certainly seems believable, but of course by Wikipedia standards we need a source because it could also be made up out of whole cloth by someone posting nonsense to mess with us. But it is likely worth looking into whether any sources can be found. Wnt ( talk) 13:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Exculpatory article from the Intercept:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/25/fort-dix-five-terror-plot-the-real-story/
More than seven years after the trial, the person who was arguably the most critical in securing the convictions still agonizes over his role in the case. In a recent interview with The Intercept, Mahmoud Omar, the informant, maintains that while Mohamad Shnewer was involved in the Fort Dix plot, the Dukas, whom he describes as “good people,” were innocent.
“I still don’t know why the Dukas are in jail,” he says.
The point of the article is that Christie built his career by sending innocent men to jail.
178.38.47.245 ( talk) 11:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2007 Fort Dix attack plot. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
They were never confirmed to have been radicalized. The so called "Jihad Training Videos" the cited source said they made, was just them shooting targets at a range. This opening sentence is islamaphobia. Better evidence than that is needed than that to call them radicalized. They should be called Muslim men like the edits made previously, but I made this talk post as to not cause a revert war. 2601:80:8402:1AA0:7123:1476:C0B7:A9C8 ( talk) 18:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2007 Fort Dix attack plot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
this event has been over-reported and seems to have fallen victim to media bias (and perhaps religious bias, given the apparent emphasis on the religion of the alleged conspirators). the threat level was low, and the plot was not close to being carried out. it thus seems appropriate to remove it from the current events page. ctj 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the source that followed the sentence "and they trained by playing paintball in the woods." The source never says anything about paintball, so I deleted the unsourced statment. PBGuardsman 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times on October 19, 2008 sites the use of Paintball as a method of tactical training for the Ft. Dix Six. This is in the article Ft. Dix Six informants in the hot seat too. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fortdix19-2008oct19,0,5615585.story Mudmanz( talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't they really be called "assault rifles"? Were they capable of full-auto fire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UnneededAplomb ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
M16s and AK-47s are Assault Rifles. They are assigned to individual soldiers and are carried as a primary individual weapon hence 'Rifle'. M-60s and M-249 are Assault Weapons. Though carried by an individual they are assigned as a 'squad' weapon hence the designation SAW (Squad Assault Weapon) to the 249. Media and government officials regularly use the terms interchangeably. -- mitrebox 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
When was the video made, January 31, 2006 or 2007? -- Joelmills 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed all instances where they were referred to as a terror group/cell. Terrorism is on Wikipedia:Words to avoid and should generally only be used when referring to someone describing them as terrorists. It should not be used in the 'narrative voice' of the article. This is especially important in this case since as with the USS Cole bombing, it appears to have been a plan to attack a military target without involving any civilians (unlike the Pentagon attack for example) so designating it as a a terrorist plan is questionable in the eyes of many Nil Einne 07:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
About the list. It is not like these guys were planning attacks on all these places, they merely considered them, before settling on Fort Dix. How about removing it? 130.161.182.29 10:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The term "towel head" is an absolutely racist term and should immediately be removed from this article. I am new and don't know how to do such things, but I found the use of this term completely shocking. 64.222.44.148 10:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In all posts they were mentioned as being from former Yugoslavia. They names clearly revealed that they are Albanians from Kosovo, but it could be tricky to mention that right now, when USA is trying to separate Kosovo from Serbia and to give it independence. Thus, try to refer to their origin as it is, this will give clearer picture of the bacground of this event.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreadnot ( talk • contribs).
I disagree that the term "towel head" is racist on the following grounds
1. It never hurts to bring a towel.
2. The head is a good place to carry items while leaving ones hands free to do other things such as
-- mitrebox 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
isopentylacetate 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
"Innocent until proven guilty" seems to have fallen out of fashion nowadays, but it's still the law. The article should reflect that the group is alleged to have planned this act, rather than stating it as truth. Wikipedia is not the prosecution. Totnesmartin 11:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, according to wikipedia, Karl Rove is guilty of everything. Get used to it.
"Wikipedia is not the prosecution." We’re not the defendants, either. I believe that we have sources, even those from the US government, that indicate that the men were going to do this. Controversial information is fine so long as it’s sourced. So why not? Gracenotes T § 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If no one minds, I might remove some ambiguity from the article. .. are there any objections? Gracenotes T § 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Kind of ambiguous. One news report said the three were ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Can anyone confirm?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 11:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The area was protected by NATO troops during Kosovo War Sea diver 09:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed some categories relating to terrorism. It is debatable that the men had a terrorist motive. In US law, terrorism is defined (in part) as aiming:
"(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction" (from the Definition of terrorism article).
Which the groups statement {as given in the article) does not say. Also, in plotting to attack a military base, the "targeting civilians" definition of terrorism does not apply.
If you think I've got this wrong, please revert my removal. Totnesmartin 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The list of Group Members indicates that
Dritan Duka, was the alleged leader of the group.
Is there a source for this? The indictment doesn't appear to single out any one individual.-- James968 13:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
They are still in the code 145.9.226.69 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me from reading this that they didn't actually have any automatic weapons, but were rather practicing with a motley assortment of rifles, shotguns, and pistols; the media appears to have taken "semiautomatic rifles" and dropped the "semi." They were trying to buy assault rifles from FBI informants. It is very unlikely that they actually had automatic weapons, and I would imagine that if they did, it would be mentioned in the official court document.
However, this sounds a lot like I'm engaging in original research. I'm not proposing that we put my "it's unlikely that they had automatic weapons" OR into the article, but would anyone be opposed to my removing references to automatic weapons with milder language that doesn't specify whether the weapons were automatic or not? I realize that the "automatic weapons" content is sourced, but your average local news outlet is hardly a reliable source on technical matters. TomTheHand 14:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, having a quick look at the ref list, I'd say that the key document we (as an encyclopedia) should be relying on is what appears to be the official FBI charges, although its source is WNBC.com so it's still a little wobbly. Anything that isn't in there I'd treat with suspicion. However, it's way past my bedtime so I'll have to leave this up to others to sort out :( -- Monotonehell 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"On a retrieved laptop, the downloaded last will and testament of two September 11 hijackers[7] and militant Islamist recruiting speeches given by Osama bin Laden and others were allegedly recovered.[8]"
Are the documents available from the internet or did these people have special access to them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.131.1.131 ( talk) 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Fortunately, there has not been very much vandalism related to the name of Fort Dix (Dix = Dicks = Penises, one might logically conclude, so I would imagine that someone would be tempted). I only found one such vandal edit, on the Fort Dix page's history section, and, even then, it dated to mid-2006. Keep up the good work, guys! 204.52.215.107 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Two dates are listed, 7th and 8th of May. Which is correct? Pennywisepeter 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This report [ [1]] says it was the 7th so i've changed it. Pennywisepeter 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I keep reverting edits back to former Yugoslavia, if anyone has information to the contrary please provide it. Bas van Leeuwen 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Why '2007'? How many other plots on Fort Dix have there been? -- 84.67.250.92 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, where did the line in the introduction/summary about these men "repeated claiming" to be "of homosexual decent [sic]" (etc.) come from? It supposedly comes from the Washington Post article, but it doesn't show up anywhere else in the Wikipedia article and there's no mention of any such thing anywhere in WaPo.
Certainly, if someone can come up with a real citation, it's interesting information. But it seems like a highly offensive (on numerous levels), completely bogus insertion.
Just refreshed the page and I see now that it's gone. But I'm posting this anyway to show that someone noticed.
Does this happen often?
Dresdenia 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism, in the first section pertaining porking some young girls. 216.153.166.69 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)chefantwon
It is interesting that this foiled attack made wikipedia front page, but a foiled attack by a Christian abortion clinic bomber in Texas two weeks ago didn't. Is it because attempted radical Islamic attacks are more important than attempted radical Christian attacks? Or because wikipedia does not rank front page positioning by the actual event but rather by media volume in reporting the event (which was greater for the radical Islamic attack)? Sad mouse 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Basically wikipedia is driven by bias, it is the reason why articles are written in the first place and promoted and why others notice inconsistencies and are distraught at the fact. Wikipedia acknowledges this; if you want your side to be mentioned, write an article on the anti-abortion plot and promote it, just as the Fort Dix attack plot article was written and promoted by another side.
Also I'll try to answer your rhetorical question. This article's plot concerned a large group of individuals that were plotting to mass murder federal employees. It was also much more planned out. The abortion clinic plot was relatively simple, not as dangerous, by a single person, and targeted a few select civilians, which would qualify as regular homicide. It appears that federal cases also have much more priority.
Islamic terrorists are viewed as a bigger threat to an average person's life than Christian terrorists by the public, this should explain the relative external media coverage.-- Exander 09:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Many news sources persist in claiming that the Albanian brothers are "Yugoslavs" or "former Yugoslavs". This is probably best avoided. Firstly, Albanians are not ethnically or linquistically Slavic; this is the root of the conflicts in Serbia and Macedonia. Perhaps more importantly, "Former Yugoslav" is a term to be avoided, as it is offensive to virtually everyone to whom it might be applied. One would not want to call Estonians or Kazakhs "Former Soviets" merely to avoid specifying their ethnicity or for the sake of familiarity. The brothers are Albanians from the Macedonian side of the Serbian-Macedonian border region, so they are very likely Kosovars(I assume; clarification needed); ethnic Albanians from the semi-autonomous Serbian province of Kosovo. A large number of Kosovar refugees live in Macedonia, especially near the border, and the Albanian communities of Kosovo have strong cultural ties with those of Macedonia. The Albanians were, in general, opposed to being part of Yugoslavia, were disappointed with their place in it, and now want independance from or autonomy within the succesor states. Calling these men "Former Yugoslavs" or "Yugoslavians" is factually untrue (they are not Slavs) and politically insensitive to all parties. Paving over tremendous ethnic rifts in the former Yugoslavia by lumping disparate peoples together does a disservice to readers trying to understand the political motivations of these men. The only time "Former Yugoslav" should be used is when referring to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Greek pressure (to avoid confusion with Greek Macedonia and the "historic region") has prevented the Macedonians from formally (and sensibly) dropping the appelation.
--JovanPanić 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem lies in the murky circumstances of Eastern European geopolitics and ethnicity. Being equally offensive to everyone is far superior to giving preferential treatment to any one of the several groups competing for their place in the sun. "Former Yugoslavia" is a wonderful blanket term which avoids the nasty tendancy to make anyone learn something new- as as far as these regional skirmishes go, that usually means something as new as last week's updates. Isaac Crumm 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I figured I'd add this section because of its strong relevance to this alleged plot. I'm going to improve upon the section and get better sources once the LewRockwell.com site publishes articles regarding this attack in the next few days. Life, Liberty, Property 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's an updated source. Life, Liberty, Property 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In view of the long history of right wing elements in the U.S. traditionally heavily represented in law enforcement and currently in control of the executive function and on the basis of presented evidence the possibility of a sting operation instigated by the infiltrating agent as an agent provacteur is certainly credible. [2] Lycurgus 03:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
USA Today has this piece http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-10-fort-dix_N.htm , certainly sounds rather odd. Perhaps grounds for reviewing the Entrapment section? KDLarsen 23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Some smartass renamed them to Durka. I just fixed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.252.225.224 ( talk) 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I can't help but notice a bias against the investigation of these men. If they had recorded themselves shooting with weapons, how much more certain can you get? The word "alledged" looks like its trying to mock the investigation of the men. Its not alledged if they recorded themselves shooting with guns, so why is it "alledged that they shot with weapons? By the way I am just refering to this part of the first paragraph thats all. Tourskin 19:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is Duka brother’s ethnicity constantly being removed? Is wikipedia still free encyclopedia or is it being censored depending on current political situation (read: possible Kosovo independence).
I just got a threat from user Mineralè that my IP will be banned if I 'vandalise' 2007 Fort Dix attack plot page again. How is adding ethnicity information regarded as vandalism? I really don't understand that.
Mineralè is an Ethno-Nazi, evidently. PC moron gone mad with power.
I'm removing the term "sanctuary city policies". The article referenced does not use the term, and it's not exactly NPOV -- WikiMarshall 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There were ten men in the video, but only six were arrested. If I were the person who tipped off the authorities about this video, I would want to remain anonymous for my own protection and for the safety of my family, and not have my name and place of employment right there on Wikipedia for any terrorist to read and pursue. Even if the person does not mind being named, and even if it is legal to have the name there, shouldn't Wikipedia look out for that person's safety and remove the name and personal information? Yes, the person is a hero, but that also makes them a prime target for the enemy. And couldn't the place of employment also become a target out of revenge over the thwarted attack?
It seems that the government reports were very careful not to leak this information to the public, and probably for safety reasons. With the info on Wikipedia, maybe the person and the place of employment need to go on some sort of witness protection program.
Shrommer 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the hard drive was retrieved somehow from the possession of the arrested men, but the article does not make that clear. It reads as if you finish the whole chronology of events about Fort Dix, and then somebody changes the subject to write about a 9-11 update.
My two suggestions: 1-Clarify how the retrieved hard drive fits into the article. 2-Move the paragraph to the body of the news without a separate heading, or at least put the whole thing with the heading ABOVE the chronology of events. The chronology works best as a closing summary. (Is the hard-drive part included in the chronology? Should it be?)
Shrommer 02:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
What was the name of the father's pizzeria that one of the suspects worked at? I heard some unsubstantiated reports that it was Pasquale's. Can anyone confirm or deny this? JH032774
The attack on the sister of one of the plotters was certainly unjustified and wrong but does it constitute a hate crime? To be a hate crime, then the person hitting the sister would have to have done it because the girl is a Muslim, not because the girl is the sister of a plotter. If the person attacked because of the religion or group-membership then yes its a hate crime, however, if the person attacked because the girl is the sister of a plotter that's a reprisal against family members. When people beat up Bill Buckner's kid at school because his dad made an error that cost the Red Sox the world series, that wasn't a hate crime, it was just people being assholes. Joby1491 ( talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)j
But Bill Buckner and his kid are white. Can't be guilty of racism or hate unless you are white and the victim isn't(gays not withstanding).
I fixed a reference or two in the article to Serdar Tatar, where his last name was misspelled 'Tartar'. Unfortunately, when you do a search for 'Serdar Tatar', Wikipedia says there is no such article, but when you spell it 'Serdar Tartar', it redirects to this article. Can someone help me out and fix that? I'm not sure how - thanks. Rblaster ( talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Not moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 2007 Fort Dix attack plot → Fort Dix attack plot — There was only one of them. I would do it myself, but since there is a page lock, this is impossible to do. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 23:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This article fails to present crucial information about the case. It is causing harm each minute it stays up in this form. It should at least be flagged. Oral arguments on the appeal are going to take place May 22, and people are going to be reading this article in droves in the next few weeks.
Among the many things this article does not talk about is the role the informants played. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that both informants pushed the defendants to concoct a plot. Moreover, the informants themselves both have serious criminal records in Egypt and Albania. Beznik Bakalli is wanted for murder in Albania, and Mahmoud Omar has a history of fraud. (Indeed, that is why they both cooperated in the first place.) This page also does not do enough to differentiate the Dukas from Shnewer, as well as the individual Dukas. The government has essentially stipulated that the Dukas had no knowledge of the so-called surveillance trips, and no knowledge about the planning for Fort Dix. There is also evidence that the Dukas said to the informants that it is forbidden by Islam to kill U.S. soldiers, but the judge held that was inadmissible.
I know the no original research rule, and I can only cite to original research for now, but there has to be at least a way for me to flag this article. Any person looking for general information can hardly come to any conclusion other than guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsqr ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Neither Woodson nor Bledsoe really have links to this case - both were considered by police to be isolated, not part of terrorist groups. No evidence for Bledsoe's late claims to have been supported by AQAP; his father said he could not "process reality." Don't try to use every incidence of violence by a disturbed person as a Muslim terrorist incident; the police don't and federal investigators don't. Parkwells ( talk) 23:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I regretfully have to remove [3] - it sounds like a first hand account by someone directly involved, and certainly seems believable, but of course by Wikipedia standards we need a source because it could also be made up out of whole cloth by someone posting nonsense to mess with us. But it is likely worth looking into whether any sources can be found. Wnt ( talk) 13:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Exculpatory article from the Intercept:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/25/fort-dix-five-terror-plot-the-real-story/
More than seven years after the trial, the person who was arguably the most critical in securing the convictions still agonizes over his role in the case. In a recent interview with The Intercept, Mahmoud Omar, the informant, maintains that while Mohamad Shnewer was involved in the Fort Dix plot, the Dukas, whom he describes as “good people,” were innocent.
“I still don’t know why the Dukas are in jail,” he says.
The point of the article is that Christie built his career by sending innocent men to jail.
178.38.47.245 ( talk) 11:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2007 Fort Dix attack plot. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
They were never confirmed to have been radicalized. The so called "Jihad Training Videos" the cited source said they made, was just them shooting targets at a range. This opening sentence is islamaphobia. Better evidence than that is needed than that to call them radicalized. They should be called Muslim men like the edits made previously, but I made this talk post as to not cause a revert war. 2601:80:8402:1AA0:7123:1476:C0B7:A9C8 ( talk) 18:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)